Author
Topic: What does it mean when I say "successful freeware"? (Read 14334 times)

I agree that hearing about monetizing freeware is scary, but it seems to be happening all around us. One example may be Picasa. Free is the word Google is built around. They are best at the free+ads game.

Individuals can afford to give software away for free and receive no monetary compensation, but I believe all of us seek at least some kind of compensation and are happy when someone likes the software, recommends it, ...

On the other hand, any software has a live cycle. Coding the initial version is fun, adding new features that people request less so, writing documentation is usually boring, answering the same question N times (despite an answer being on the web) can be frustrating, updating for new OSes, solving compatibility issues is a chore. All that must be done to maximize the chances to be "successful" (whatever definition we agree on, but roughly more users = more success). If this is to be sustainable in a long run, some form of income is needed.

I made 6 freeware apps in the last 4 years. None of them is a financial success. Though 3 of the 6 apps brought at least a few bucks from donations. I also tried ads on the tools' web pages - this could be an alternative to donations if the typical users are not likely to send money. So far, I have resisted all the offers to include some kind of toolbar or adware in the installers.

From the limited experience I have, I believe it is possible, but extremely difficult to earn enough to pay for living by making freeware. One would have to carefully plan what kind of application to make, dedicate the right amount of time to it and make a lot of applications, because only some of them will "make it".

I went into the grocery store and asked if I could get some groceries for free, and they said NO~!

Then I went to get my hair cut and asked about a freebie, and they said NO too~!

Well, not to be discouraged, I went to get my car fixed, and they quoted me a price that wasn't zero~!

Sigh... But I didn't give up.

I went to a restaurant and asked about free meals. Struck out there again... Things weren't looking good...

So by this time my car was getting low on gas. I drove into the gas station and checked to see what kind of free gas they had. They didn't have ANY free gas at all! NONE!

Jeez...

So on my way back home, I dropped in at JB HiFi to maybe pick up some new music or a DVD. And they didn't have anything for free either~!

Holy! Not 1 hit! Pure failure!

Well, being thoroughly depressed at this point, I figured I needed a massage to cheer me up. But when I asked for a freebie I got really strange looks, so I asked if I could try it out for 30 days and then if I liked it maybe then I could pay... Well, some big mountain of a guy threw me out on my face.

So I had to drop by the hospital, and I figured if somethings going to be free, this had to be. Nope. No luck. They wanted money too!

I'm getting discouraged... It seems like everybody expects to get paid for everything...

I made 6 freeware apps in the last 4 years. None of them is a financial success.

Does anybody else see the problem here?

There's a difference between freeware and software that's being given away for free but with an agenda or motive behind it.

That's why it's important to insist on the distinction. Otherwise, the end-user feels they're being set-up; and the programmer feels resentful and unappreciated.

If you really want to give something away for free, then just give it away.

If you hope or expect to get something back in return, then be precise and upfront about it. And also stop calling your program 'freeware.'

Interestingly, some software companies are starting to understand this. I was on one site a while ago that had a short Q&A on the product's landing page. In answer to the question "Why are you giving this away for free?" They came right out and said it was being given away with the hopes that you'd find it so useful you'd be motivated to check out (and hopefully buy) the enhanced version, or one of their other fine products.

They also went on to say they understood that their freebie might be all you ever needed BUT if you decided not to purchase anything, could you at least help them improve the product by providing feedback in the form of bug reports or suggestions for new features.

Lastly, they asked that you tell others about them if you found their products useful either by telling friends or writing a review.

See the difference?

I walked away very much liking these people because they were refreshingly honest about why they were offering a no-charge version of their product in return for my consideration of making a purchase, providing them with my feedback and suggestions, and helping them with word of mouth advertising.

Notice how they actually asked for a lot more than just money, but still managed not to be offensive or appear manipulative?

Contrast that with the occasional self-righteous and slightly hurt tone some developers adopt to shame somebody into paying for something they were told was supposed to be free.

If you want to get paid - say so. And require it.

If you're offering something at no charge - say so. And be up front about why.

You'll discover people will respect you for that (and possibly go along with what you want) far more readily than they'll allow you to shame or otherwise coerce them into doing something.

I'm getting discouraged... It seems like everybody expects to get paid for everything...

Except for software...

More like many people expect to have to pay for everything except software...

and music...

and movies...

and books...

and...pretty much anything that can be distributed electronically.

Hmmm...

Do we detect a pattern here?

-////

Note: I find it amusingly ironic that many people of my acquaintance, who code and bewail how often their work gets "appropriated", are among the most militant advocates of downloading the licensed creative works of others off torrent sites. Must be like what my three year old niece says: But That's Different!

People expect free software because copying is so cheap, we have to deal with it. There seems to be two ways. Freeware that the author made and forgot about and freeware that is maintained and nursed. The former is OK without donations, the later not.

True. I may actually do that - I mean explaining why it is this particular piece of software "free" and how does it fit in the whole scheme. I always thought it was obvious, but obviously , it was not.

40hz's post that started with "Does anybody else see the problem here?" is one of the best things i've read in a while.

Really well put -- I think that should go up somewhere more permanent where others can read it. I'll post it to the blog.

[The only tiny quibble i might have is the advice to stop calling software offered for a motive "freeware". There are very heated debates about the term freeware, and my general feeling is that motivation is not a good way to determine whether something is freeware or not. My personal view is that it really comes down to whether you are offering something fully functional that can be used permanently without "punishment", financial cost, or undue annoyance, like being forced to endure ads or similar unwanted things).

[EDIT: I guess i also have a quibble with the second part of this: "If you want to get paid - say so. And require it. "I believe strongly in the concept of encouraging voluntary payments for digital goods (e.g. Donationware).But i do think the key is being honest and up front and letting people know what you expect and want from them, and not trying to make money off your software in ways that aren't transparent to users.]

It seems like there's a tone in this thread that if you try to write software and give it away for free but still make some money somewhere along the line, then you're doing something wrong or scummy.

I can't see anything wrong with trying to give software away for free and at the same time trying to make a living off of it.

Should we demand that all wait-staff in restaurants stop getting paid because the warm fuzzy feelings that they get from serving people should be enough? How about police? Firemen? Nurses? etc. etc. etc.

True. I may actually do that - I mean explaining why it is this particular piece of software "free" and how does it fit in the whole scheme. I always thought it was obvious, but obviously , it was not.

I can't see why/how not telling people "why" software is free makes you dishonest.

There are some pretty sinister implications there. What are the underlying assumptions?

The site I'm working on goes at length to explain why the software is free, but on other sites, I never mention it at all. Does that make me dishonest?

I walked away very much liking these people because they were refreshingly honest about why they were offering a no-charge version of their product in return for my consideration of making a purchase, providing them with my feedback and suggestions, and helping them with word of mouth advertising.

Notice how they actually asked for a lot more than just money, but still managed not to be offensive or appear manipulative?

Contrast that with the occasional self-righteous and slightly hurt tone some developers adopt to shame somebody into paying for something they were told was supposed to be free.

If you want to get paid - say so. And require it.

If you're offering something at no charge - say so. And be up front about why.

You'll discover people will respect you for that (and possibly go along with what you want) far more readily than they'll allow you to shame or otherwise coerce them into doing something.

It's a simple matter of being honest.

Always the best policy with yourself and others.

I think the problem with this assumption is that it can't be a marketing strategy when in reality it can.

Marketing basically means doing everything that works so yeah, you'll get one or two or maybe even a hundred who'll be honest but for every hundred who have success, the next few hundred will be faking it just to get that success.

Meanwhile it's history repeating all over again. The more people do this, the more people tune out. Eventually people become cynical of the method and you're back to the start.

Copying is not cheap alone as far as mimicking design, most people who aim to profit often profit because they mimick good will too. In life, the sociopath err...rather the social engineer has the most incentive to maximize the effects of good will via faking it.

It hasn't happened to software in such a drastic manner but again look at how maintained even means. Maintain and nursed could mean "until I'm satisfied even though I'm not going to listen to other users' demands until another product actually proves me wrong" or it could mean "go open source abandonware" or it could mean "maintained as in eventually when I one day put the program on hiatus - you'll move on and I'll move on and unless my freeware is popular no one in the future will have an easy time finding it because I'm only maintaining and nursing the software, not the elements surrounding the software"

Frankly I'm much more scared about this vibe that marketing and monetization are the same. You're never going to maximize usability if you're not into marketing or not trying to maximize marketing and it has screwed many software users/software developers from the likes of Opera to such small applications that are one of a kind like NANY Tree List.

Even here in DC, mouser's not a stranger to marketing donationware and yet it takes a member posting a complaint about DC's homepage lay-out to get the ball rolling on a discussion about the frontpage even though I remember DC's lay-out being that way for so long, it's almost a classic look.

This is why Linux Mint's tagline get to me: "From Freedom came Elegance"

There may be a risk of looking too much into the difference of freeware and instead of finding success, we find how the open source community became full of elitists.

On the flipside, if I have to guess, elite dedicated freeware authors have some of the best times with programming things as they are able to see the fruits of their labor maximized to the best of their ideas. It's probably like the feeling you get when you've been around the world or climbed Mt. Everest or been to the moon.

Lesser freeware authors may work on micro-apps and tried monetizing it but you've actually made a software where people want to pay you for something you are offering for free because it's beyond kickass.

The only tiny quibble i might have is the advice to stop calling software offered for a motive "freeware". There are very heated debates about the term freeware, and my general feeling is that motivation is not a good way to determine whether something is freeware or not. My personal view is that it really comes down to whether you are offering something fully functional that can be used permanently without "punishment", financial cost, or undue annoyance, like being forced to endure ads or similar unwanted things).

I see your point. Much of my feelings and beliefs date back to when there were basicslly three types of software: commercial, shareware, and freeware.

Back then, the term freeware was unambiguous. It was free. Period. End of script.

Over the years, the term got co-opted and polluted by various word games so that today it's become largely meaningless. Much like the word "green" when referring to environmentally friendly.

So if I come across as being a dilettante with my somewhat narrow and precise definition of freeware, I apologize. Chalk it up to someone who's become increasingly angered by the (largely successful) attempts to poison the free/open software movement's well by a conscious effort to make its terms and definitions meaningless.

My thought was it's one thing for money interests to be muddying the waters. (Pigs prefer mud anyway.) But as programmers, computer professionals, and technology enthusiasts, we here at DC didn't need to allow ourselves to get sucked into that game.

Again, just my 2¢. (Which must be getting up to a dime by now on this topic. )

Oh darn, I'm probably going to anger lots of you here but to hell with it: I'm feeling talkative.

Back then, wasn't freeware perceived as crapware?

...and before you guys think this is off-topic or deliberately flammatory, I think it's worth looking at it through those lenses because one could say freeware has evolved a long way and thus it brings up the concept of success as not just being a situational criteria but a generational one too.

It seems like there's a tone in this thread that if you try to write software and give it away for free but still make some money somewhere along the line, then you're doing something wrong or scummy.

Not AFAIC. Freeware (by my definition) is either motivated by utter altruism or it's somebody's hobby.

I've got nothing against anybody for wanting (or more likely needing) to make money off their work. I'm a network integrator/troubleshooter. I make my coin by knowing something my client doesn't - and not telling them what I know for free. Far be it from me to criticize the person who spent 200+ hours of his or her life creating a piece of software with the hopes it would return something for their efforts.

But by the same token, I don't do my thing without making it very clear up front that I don't (ok, more like can't) provide my services at no charge. If I offered to do something "for free," and then started dropping hints I expected something after the fact, the person I was dealing with would likely feel I was being less than honest with them.

Why should software be any different?

So what about "get acquainted" service offers or working "on spec"?

Nobody in their right mind that works in my profession offers either. It's the sign of an amateur. Or somebody who's so desperate they're no longer thinking about what it takes to run a business. And it also gets the relationship off on the wrong foot by introducing a logical inconsistency into the marketing of the service.

If something is free today, why should it cost something tomorrow? And even though it may sound illogical, that question WILL come up sooner or later. Usually right after you bill for anything you ever once did for free.

Now, do I ever provide my services for free?

Yes. At Linux install fests, helping seniors to use computer technology at our local Senior Center, donating time and equipment to worthy causes, offering career and technology mentoring to school kids, participating in forums and tech discussions, helping friends and family cope with their computer woes...in short, you can get me "for free" in many places...

I have to say I perceive freeware differently than 15 years ago. Maybe we need a new definition or some sub-categories.

Freeware is a buzzword now. I dare to say that simply making a good utility and throwing it into the cloud would not work like it worked 15 years ago. Current tools need online presence - at least a web page, but a blog and a forum is almost a must. They may even need a big marketing campaign (Chrome) to succeed. When we refuse to do the non-coding stuff, the chance of success are slim.

The scheme behind my freeware is simple and I believe the story is similar for most other freeware authors. I want to make freeware - or in by mouser's definition donationware. If one of my freeware projects were a financial success, I would stop doing paid software and only worked on free tools. I do not think, it is sneaky. Maybe it must be explained to the end users (if they read such "nonsense").

Oh darn, I'm probably going to anger lots of you here but to hell with it: I'm feeling talkative.

Back then, wasn't freeware perceived as crapware?

...and before you guys think this is off-topic or deliberately flammatory, I think it's worth looking at it through those lenses because one could say freeware has evolved a long way and thus it brings up the concept of success as not just being a situational criteria but a generational one too.

Not as far as my memory serves.

There was quite a bit of professional and bloody useful freeware out back then. Most of the bulletin board world (harbingers of today's web) ran on freeware.

Indeed, it was almost a truism back then that freeware and shareware offerings were far better choices than their commercial counterparts - when there even were commercial counterparts.

There are many ways to make and share and give away (or market and sell) software or services, and lots of different motivations, and lots of different paths that people can take.

If you are up front with your users/customers/friends about what you are doing and why, so that they don't feel tricked, then you are doing fine, whatever path you take.

This is what I'm finding very, very, very wrong.

It seems to me that the underlying assumption is that unless you "confess", you must be up to no good.

There's no reason at all to be up front about what you are doing and why. Very few people do that. It doesn't make them dishonest.

If you're not doing anything wrong, not tricking people, not installing malware, then there's nothing wrong with not revealing your motivations.

Why look a gift horse in the mouth?

That being said, there is a very big difference between honestly giving something away and tricking people into installing toolbars, spyware, etc. etc.

If you are installing a toolbar, then you need to be up front about that. Toolbars aren't really a part of the software, so there's no expectation to get a toolbar when installing ACME programs. THAT kind of stuff you need to be up front about.

[EDIT: I guess i also have a quibble with the second part of this: "If you want to get paid - say so. And require it. "I believe strongly in the concept of encouraging voluntary payments for digital goods (e.g. Donationware).

I really want to believe strongly in the donation concept too. I think it's a marvellous idea that speaks to all that's best in people.

I'm just curious about how well it works practice.

Because while it seems to be working very well here, I'm sure most of us would also qualify that by pointing out just how unique (or perhaps totally unique) DC is. If you don't believe it, just look at the results of the last fundraiser. I've never known any fund drive that got double their target before I saw it happen here.

But websites are websites and software is software. So I'm also curious how donations made to a website compare to donations made to software authors. Without meaning to pry (so no specifics please) is there anybody, whose portfolio of software is earning a them even a modest wage purely from donations? By wage I mean it would be equivalent to what you might earn from an unskilled part-time job.

[EDIT: I guess i also have a quibble with the second part of this: "If you want to get paid - say so. And require it. "I believe strongly in the concept of encouraging voluntary payments for digital goods (e.g. Donationware).

I really want to believe strongly in the donation concept too. I think it's a marvellous idea that speaks to all that's best in people.

I'm just curious about how well it works practice.

Because while it seems to be working very well here, I'm sure most of us would also qualify that by pointing out just how unique (or perhaps totally unique) DC is. If you don't believe it, just look at the results of the last fundraiser. I've never known any fund drive that got double their target before I saw it happen here.

But websites are websites and software is software. So I'm also curious how donations made to a website compare to donations made to software authors. Without meaning to pry (so no specifics please) is there anybody, whose portfolio of software is earning a them even a modest wage purely from donations? By wage I mean it would be equivalent to what you might earn from an unskilled part-time job.

Please somebody say "yes."

You have no idea how much I want to believe this concept can work.

Wikipedia.

Wikileaks.

Ummm... Running out here...

Mozilla monetizes through search (and doesn't really make it very public).

I disagree. Marketed freeware or otherwise, this should and is the standard because no one will want to participate in dishonest software once they found out. Mostly idiotic big businesses or developers who don't know what they are doing do this and in an age of social networks, it is success suicide to not even abide by this.

Quote

Freeware is a buzzword now. I dare to say that simply making a good utility and throwing it into the cloud would not work like it worked 15 years ago. Current tools need online presence - at least a web page, but a blog and a forum is almost a must. They may even need a big marketing campaign (Chrome) to succeed. When we refuse to do the non-coding stuff, the chance of success are slim.

That's close to what I mean.

Quote

Not as far as my memory serves.

There was quite a bit of professional and bloody useful freeware out back then. Most of the bulletin board world (harbingers of today's web) ran on freeware.

Indeed, it was almost a truism back then that freeware and shareware offerings were far better choices than their commercial counterparts - when there even were commercial counterparts.

Like vlastimil's quote above, I'm not so much saying freeware was crappy then as much as it was perceived as crapware.

I wasn't around at the time though so I might be wrong. My impression was that bulletin boards were so disjointed and small back then that it was easy for a small group of elitists to have their say on what good freeware was but they were mostly the same guys who reject talks regarding usability, regarding design, and it was more of a "at least you are getting something functional for free and how dare you question this developer's hard work" and it was mostly shareware who tried to do more of the quality software. In fact if I'm not mistaken, part of why Linux in the beginning got so much hype, was because Linux was close to the only great freeware around. Not that the kernel wasn't worth talking about on it's own but that it was the first time something free managed to come close to the quality and power of a professional software.

Quote

There's no reason at all to be up front about what you are doing and why. Very few people do that. It doesn't make them dishonest.

If you're not doing anything wrong, not tricking people, not installing malware, then there's nothing wrong with not revealing your motivations.

Not so much wrong as much as it's an ineffective way of developing successful software and you are killing the ease by which your users can give you feedback and the motivation for them to donate to you.

But I digress, I'm shifting the topic away from dishonesty because like I said prior, honesty can be easily faked. Not being up front however is just symptoms of a poor design waiting to happen which would only lead to a poorer updated software.

I would like to emphasize however that I believe being up front is different from being open or showing your dirty laundry as in the corporate world that's how it's often perceived. Examples like what 40hz are just basic customer service.

Quote

I'm just curious about how well it works practice.

Because while it seems to be working very well here, I'm sure most of us would also qualify that by pointing out just how unique (or perhaps totally unique) DC is. If you don't believe it, just look at the results of the last fundraiser. I've never known any fund drive that got double their target before I saw it happen here.

But websites are websites and software is software. So I'm also curious how donations made to a website compare to donations made to software authors. Without meaning to pry (so no specifics please) is there anybody, whose portfolio of software is earning a them even a modest wage purely from donations? By wage I mean it would be equivalent to what you might earn from an unskilled part-time job.

Oh and this is just another example of why up front and honesty are the standard. It's not mega million oh my god spam PPC money but if you take into account size of staff/speed of user base growth/age of software - it's pretty impressive. Easy to excuse this though as "well...it doesn't work for smaller freeware" but that's how it always is with marketing. It's isn't as good in debates as it is in real life.

It has to be said though that the wider stance by the younger is best suited for the younger and the tighter stance is best suited for the veteran. Think athletes like Jordan and Kobe who adopted a tighter way of playing as their athletic ability dwindle down.

Still man...from freeware to Miyamoto...this thread has indeed gone a long way.